About your Search

20130401
20130430
SHOW
Book TV 37
Hannity 29
( more )
STATION
SFGTV 564
MSNBCW 348
FOXNEWSW 263
CSPAN 229
SFGTV2 217
CSPAN2 185
FBC 185
CNNW 164
KGO (ABC) 94
KTVU (FOX) 93
KPIX (CBS) 92
CURRENT 84
KNTV (NBC) 83
KQED (PBS) 77
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 67
KRCB (PBS) 51
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 3088
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 3,101 (some duplicates have been removed)
on this legislation. more than a decade ago sequa was enacted. now more than a decade ago we've not had legislative negative declarations under sequa. it's been a choofg and unpredictable process without a clear deadline for filing on appeal. while sometimes large developers can deal with the chaotic situation they have lawyers and small projects and home projects can't. this legislation should have been passes a decade ago. 3 of our predecessors attempted to pass those pursues in statutory form and they were unable to do so. so my legislation is before us and finally to codify pursues. i introduced this legislation almost 6 months ago. after a number of months to do so in a methodal way. we have had 3 round table meetings various smaller meetings are affordable housing and historic preservation. we've had 3 hearings and two hearings at the planning commission and now two at the land use committee. both the historic commission and the planning commission have recommended approval of my legislation. the hearings we've held i've been reprehensible - but to the many, many suggests that people have mad
on projects requiring board legislative action, negating the need to file formal ceqa appeals; revising noticing procedures for environmental impact reports and negative declarations for plan area projects exceeding 20 acres; expanding noticing requirements for certain exempt projects; and clarifying existing noticing requirements for em projects. >> thank you. and i am the author of item number 1. so, colleagues, before us today is a modest piece of long overdue legislation to bring clarity, predictability, transparency, and fairness to our ceqa appeals process. ~ this legislation will allow full and complete public participation in projects whether in support or opposition, and will provide every opportunity for members of our community to object to projects or to appeal projects. for the first time it puts a clear process in place so that people know when and how to file an appeal, and so that at some point we reach finality in our decision-making process. having a clear process with clear rules for appeals and a clear end point is good government. it benefits everyone. this legislat
on by several supervisors to no avail yet. i do want to respect that this is the legislation that is before us today, and tomorrow i will have an opportunity to speak more at length on the legislation that we are introducing tomorrow. and i do look forward to all the members that are here today in terms of their comments and feedback on our [speaker not understood] currently supporting supervisor wiener's legislation. just a couple of things. i think that there is general agreement in the room that we need a timeline, a clear appeal window that is generally known to everyone in the public, whether it be the developers, the builders, or members of the community or the neighborhood. and i hope that whatever comes out at the end of this is that we are able to address that very issue. but i think the question is, of course, when does that appeal window toll, when does that begin. and i think that kind of debate that we're having here today and i think that it would really behoove the board in order for us to fully vet two different concepts in terms whatv that appeal window should look like. secon
understanding in reading our election is, in fact, under our legislation the current procedure would remain in place that one, the rec and park commission approvals it there are would be a thirty day window to appeal but in under your legislation the opponent could wait until a building permit was pulled and if there were 3 priltsz pulled would wait under it is employed. it seems like that is something that the facts being what they are we can at least have the same facts at hand >> thank you. >> does the planning did not have any presentation to may make before we get to public comment? >> we haven't prepared a formal presentation but we have not prepared anything. >> maybe i can ask planning staff on that issue we've been talking about the delores park what would trigger the thirty days for the appeal? >> yes, in our reading of the legislation an appeal could be filed once the negative declaration is adopted which in practice happens at the time that the project is approved but then an appeal could be filed within thirty days of any discretionary approval. >> so if t a building perm
somehow ramroded this legislation through does not sit with me. i think we do need to bring in some more amendments and i think we need a little bit of time for that. that being said on the other hand, i don't want to see a long delay on this legislation as i think some supporters of the other version might want to see, but did have an opportunity to review the first version of supervisor kim's legislation which was provided to me by the community coalition working on this. and as i gave them the feedback privately, i'll say this publicly. there were a number of i think many elements of that legislation that seem to impact issues well beyond providing clarity around the process involving categorical exemptions and negative declarations and i just want to say that for me, ideas that go beyond that modest subject that i think we should be tackling are not ideas that i'm likely to support in a short period of time. when i sat down with the leadership of the coalition that worked on supervisor kim's version, i was told that we could hopefully likely work through these issues over the ne
here is [speaker not understood] amendments, supervisor wiener's legislation has been a moving target and many people cannot keep up with it. jane kim is introducing legislation tomorrow. people by right would like to see both side by side compared and would like to look at this and [speaker not understood] the best part for both pieces of legislation could be combined . i think that would be a fair thing for the public to look at as this has been a difficult process and a quick process, and as howard wong said earlier, ~ people don't get it. i'm going to bring up what i think was extremely unfair categorical exemption. it's, the soccer field in golden gate park were listed under different lot numbers and they were supposed to be supposedly nothing more than another grass hill. turned out it was going to be a thousand-seat stadium with lighting. this was all found out by nancy warfol. so, i appreciate what she has done and you can see that this process can be abused. i think when i talk to citizens, they're very worried that a project after it has gone through the ceqa process
's going on. there is disagreement about that. supervisor wiener's legislation will create an open predictable process to resolve these disputes. it will make it easy for everyday people, not just attorneys to understand the deadlines. it will make the ceqa process open and more clear for the little guys in san francisco, the homeowners who want to make small, important to the home owner improvements to their home. we therefore support supervisor wiener's legislation. by contrast, we're concerned that supervisor kim's legislation might have a negative impact on our members because nearly all the homes in golden gate heights are more than 50 years old. according to supervisor kim's proposal as i understand t the over the counter permits that our members currently can get for minor projects, for example, you know, replacing a broken handrail, windows, leaky roof, that sort of things, would no longer be allowed. this would add months of delay to a home remodel project upwards of $500,000 or more to obtain a categorical exemption certificate they would need to continue with what is ess
, this legislation is long, long overdue. we know that our best response to a major earthquake and we know we're have a larger earthquake is to make sure we're resilient. that our housing remainsful intact and our infrastructure remains intact and the majority of people are able to stay in their housing. if we don't take action to make sure our housing is resilient we'll have a catastrophe. we should have resources to rebuild our infrastructure. this is a significant step in that decision that requires that soft housing units 3 stories or higher in terms of our housing stock housing tens of thousands of people to make sure that housing is stabilized. we know that if those buildings collapse we're have displaced residents and they're no longer be rent controlled. it's our favor to make sure this stay intact. i do acknowledge that this legislation does impose a hardship. it's not cheap to resident fit those buildings and especially small property owners. we're going to try to make it as easy as possible to get financing for those people. i want to commend the many, many people who have participated in
legislation that allowed for said appeals that are set forth in 31.16. let me commend all of you, supervisor kim, mr. chairman, and the entire board, for grappling with an issue that the board that i served on grappled with for 12 years. i introduced one. i failed. fiona ma introduced one, she failed. ma kelp a introduced one after i left the board. she failed. i think you guys can get this done. that is the good. let me deal with the bad. 31.16 which has worked just fine for 12 years ~ and let me associate myself with comments of mr. welch, needs not be changed, not one word of it, supervisor wiener. let me deal with the ugly. i would respectfully suggest, mr. president, that in the new age of conciliatory behavior, that members of the public like mike casey and like the last gentleman who spoke, not be questioned in such an aggressive and offensive way. or alternatively, that individuals -- and let me name names like frank noto who is being paid for his behavior -- be addressed in the same way. thank you for the opportunity to address you. i suggest you continue this item. i hope that you
association [speaker not understood], which strongly supports supervisor wiener's ceqa legislation. our neighborhood association is 100 years old and we thought we saw it all. we think that this is a very important open government measure that promotes transparency. it's unjust to keep the planning process hidden from the general public and accessible only to the experts. who under the confusing rules. you're going to hear from the usual suspects here, i trust, and maybe their attorneys. i heard one activist saying i had a long talk with aaron last night. so, you will hear that. but let's think about everybody else here who doesn't have time to come to all the hearings who doesn't fully understand ceqa. supervisor chiu asked about what specifics, what's important. what's important to us is clear notice, clear notification so we all know what's happening and when we can register our thoughts. we want one appeal, not two or three or four appeals. people who are working people who have families don't have time to come to multiple hearings. do it. and then finally, we think it's only f
to just add a couple of quick things, first of all our legislation is going to the planning commission this thursday but what we are required to be heard by is the historic planning commission and so that will be heard on may 15th. because they don't have a may first meeting in may. so if we could continue this to may 20th that would be ideal because those legislations will be ready to be acted upon, whatever the legislation is for at least there will be that option that would be out there. and the second thing is that i really hope that during this time period, we will be able to explore what we can do on the front end, again, to support the projects that we as a city seem to informally agree with the priorities whether they are the bike lanes or the affordable housing. >> while largely, it has not have seemed to have been an issue the last three years and we had one affordable housing. and one bike lane pedestrian safety exemption appealed in the last three years, there is a perception that we are not doing enough to support these types of projects. i would like to say that i think t
with the concerns of people in my district. >> my read of the legislation is that it applies to exclusively to off sale. not to prevent a bar or restaurant or something on-site? >> that's right. if there is a restriction, people can actually come set up on sale sites in the district. >> good. if there are no further comments why don't we open up for public comment. this is item no. 1 related to the alcohol restrict use district. i have three speaker cards. did you want to do a public comment? >> so we have shawn, and joel kimly. >> i'm shawn marsini. i want to talk about item 3. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm angie men ken chair of the group and i'm here to support this legislation. we are in full support of it. i think it's very important for the excelsory neighborhood. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, i'm president of the merchants and residents association and resupport the legislation and welcome your support. thank you. >> thank you for being here. >> okay. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> okay. just want to urge your support collea
. the rooms tenants association we support supervisor kim's legislation. we support it among other reasons because it's superior noting requirement. and show more respect for historic buildings. we were blind sited by the installation of two humanely signs on the post office recently. this is a gem of a building and was designed by the architect of the hotel. those signs demonstrate the clear need to strengthen the planning process and improve noting and respect historic buildings. we live across the street are from the long shore building where the developer wanted to destroy. i understood a planning commissioner said he would have voted against the building if he'd known the history. we need adequate noting of the show stopping information that's known throughout the planning process. we live directly across from the water front at the 75 howard street. this project would exceed the height limit by 70 percent i only found out about this project with when i ran into a port office on the street. the sequa process needs to be strengthened not weakened. >> thank you very much. >> howard pa
reading of the legislation an appeal could be filed once the negative declaration is adopted which in practice happens at the time that the project is approved but then an appeal could be filed within thirty days of any discretionary approval. >> so if t a building permit between parks renovation it could go into construction and there's a permit that is pulled in the middle it could be enclosing to sequa? and if you have that kind of appeal filed my understanding is construction would have to halt until the sequa is appealed >> yes, this is my understanding. >> because if there's a sequa document is challenged additional changes will have to be made. >> i was going to ask the city attorney. >> that's a strange writing. the ordinance the supervisor kim's ordinance provides in section 31.1 that a negative declaration be filed anytime it's issued by the planning department and no longer than the 30 days avenue it's adopted after the city approves the promise >> let's say if the park project in the case of a categorical exception? >> it's anything up so long as there is still a
legislation it's not my legislation or your legislation i've heard that a couple of times today. i think we should look at the best for all are i want to thank president chiu. i think some of the things he's added are very good where specifically he supports supervisors kim alternate to sure all appeals inform to the environmental determination at the whole board. personally support the trigger and you have to understand that most of her legislation has been grafted by the community. one of the things that the community neighborhoods have a lot of it seems to be fundamentally helping the planning department and talking about helping the developers but it is like planning overwhelmed. i want this to be not so much about what the planning department can and can't do. so i want to thank you. again and that's it. thank you >> thank you. >> supervisors thank you for hearing us again. and thank you, president chiu. and i like the notes i was able to take awhile you were speaking so far very, very much. considering your remarks last hearing. the thirty days after final approval is still a great
is the lead author of this legislation. supervisor farrell. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank everyone who is here and stuck around today for this legislation, including my colleagues. this has been a long road to get to today. i want to thank supervisor wiener for your support in this legislation. we introduced this legislation last year in 2012. and since that time we have had numerous ongoing meetings with all parties involved in these discussions. i want to thank the tic advocates as well as the tens advocates who sat down over the course of the last few months and certainly last week, as well as supervisor chiu and norman yee who are introducing amendments today. about two months ago, both sides sat down over a multiple week span and had some encouraging and not so encouraging discussions. nevertheless, important, but given the two sides have not spoke men years, that we had that dialogue. last week alone, i met with the tenants advocates in my office and spoke with them over the weekend as well as met with numerous times ~ with the tic advocates over this weekend, the past few we
the opportunity to see supervisors kim legislation and supervisor wiener's legislation side by side. we need adequate time. we need at least until the end of may for the process to be completed. so, please do not short circuit this process. one of the things that are important that was mentioned earlier is the powers of the e r o. it maybe truthful but we need clear guidelines and we need an appeal process. so thank you supervisor kim for having that. this is not a sprint we need the time we need to have optioned. thank you >> thank you. >> supervisors we're on record as supporting supervisors wiener's current legislation. this process i guess testament to the degree of importance that we all hold sequa in. it's the standard-bearer of laws in the long run. it serves a good purpose but it's if it's allowed to be abused it's bad. so the fact we're here having this conversation about codifying the process is a wonderful process. i would take a little bit of disagreement about sprinting to the finish line i think we're close to codifying rolls rules for projects and for mitigating the process
two-thirds of the commentary today? clearly this legislation does deal with ceqa, with e-i-rs, with projects that require full e-i-rs, not simply negative declarations and cat ex's. so, it would again seem simply fair to allow full debate of those big questions that are encompassed by supervisor kim's legislation as well. i strongly urge you to hold action today until both supervisor kim's and your legislation is before us so that we can see how both deal with the critically important question of full e-i-rs. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, mr. brookes. >>> good evening, supervisors. eric brookes representing san francisco green party, local grassroots organization. our city and earth quart nater, the community ceqa improvement team. first of all, i want to reiterate what a couple other speakers on this side of the aisle said, which is that we realize that there are some problems that for a few people really cause a nightmare and we realize that this needs to be fixed. we realize that cat ex's and negative declarations need an improved process. and let me assure yo
, that in order to hear supervisor kim's legislation, it would have to go through the hpc first. if president chiu in formulating his amendments would see that and determine there are certain aspects of it that were liked or not liked, those could be amended into my legislation. in other words, that would be an acceptable process. >> that's certainly up to you. it would be helpful for us to hear from the commission on this matter just so we know. i can't speak for the hpc or the planning commission on this matter, but it would be helpful to hear from them on that. >> just for the sake of discussion, my preference is that we do allow planning and hpc to hear this, especially the pieces of -- if we choose to do it for the pieces -- legislation i'm introducing tomorrow gets put in as amendments to this current legislation, i would like those amendments vetted by the commission. would it be possible for them to be heard in the month of april so that we could hear it on may 6? >> let me just -- [multiple voices] >> planning department is conferring on the schedule. john give more, want them to clarify
for the legislation. >> speak into the microphone. >>> here to express our strong support fort light asian which -- legislation which is going to support the process. [speaker not understood]. first, this legislation is going to benefit smaller family projects in san francisco. there's been a lot of talk of larger e-i-r projects. but ceqa [speaker not understood] are issued more orphan for smaller residential projects than [speaker not understood]. unfortunately under the current system, smaller residential projects are at a disadvantage because they are recorded under lengthy, costly, environmental review and approval procedures and is still subject to a lingering threat of ceqa appeal even after they've gone through the administrative approval process. we've heard a lot of people speak to that issue today. the process increases the risk and uncertainty for smaller projects that this legislation is going to help by establishing a clear appeal period which are much desired. secondly, the underlying purpose of ceqa is to provide decision-makers with adequate information about a project impact on
exemptions and in part that's what's created the problem that exists. this legislation would bring more certainty, but would not substantively change how san francisco treats categorical exemptions. thanks very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >>> my name is mike schulte, a 25 year resident here in s. i'm also on the bernal heights design review board on west slope. i'm here to speak in favor of scott wiener's legislation and i wanted to talk specifically how it affects me -- well, i'm going to say i'm an architect, too. specifically, i'm a one-man shop and it affects small projects and small or just small-size projects. and what typically happens is if someone it going to have opposition or a problem, they'll file a dr. you go in front of the planning commission. the planning commission rules one way or the other, justly or unjustly, and that's when the first notice should take place instead of waiting for the last notice, because generally when that happens, if you're doing an addition and you get your approval from the planning commission, you begin the process of hiring a structura
the legislation was introduced, i have convened a series of very well attend and had very robust and at times contentious round table meetings with supporters and with many opponents of the legislation. listening to a variety of organizations both individually and in these group meetings to hear their concerns, suggestions, and questions about my proposal. i've had the planning department and the city attorney present at all of those meetings to make sure that we could have a good and accurate dialogue. resulting from these conversations, i have made nearly 40 amendments to the legislation incorporating feedback. now, that doesn't mean that everyone is 100% in agreement and dialogue does not always mean that everyone is going to agree on everything, but we have worked very, very hard to at least reduce the number of conflicts. so, this legislation has received -- has earned broad support in the community. various neighborhood associations including planning association for the richmond, the sunset heights association, responsible people, sharp golden gates neighborhood association, buena vist
wiener's legislation and i wanted to talk specifically how it affects me -- well, i'm going to say i'm an architect, too. specifically, i'm a one-man shop and it affects small projects and small or just small-size projects. and what typically happens is if someone it going to have opposition or a problem, they'll file a dr. you go in front of the planning commission. the planning commission rules one way or the other, justly or unjustly, and that's when the first notice should take place instead of waiting for the last notice, because generally when that happens, if you're doing an addition and you get your approval from the planning commission, you begin the process of hiring a structural engineer, other consult apartments, landscape designers and you can go through a process of six months to do the construction documents. then you go through the process of submitting the building -- [speaker not understood] building department which takes another nine months and you're paying the fees for all that. and it would be just infinitely easier to have the action tied to the first approval
. >> this is also from president chiu. >> thank you colleagues for consideration of this legislation today. the legislation we have in front of you a mends the control of the transfer of rights in the downtown commercial of zoning district. the goal of the legislation is to create a broader and more transparent market for the sale of development rights between historic properties. achieving will -- permit this in other areas. and projects need to assemble additional far by purchasing tdr from properties. the transfer lot and development loss -- lot in the same area of the downtown zoning areas it supplies very tight tdr's in the area. the legislation will also make the tdr market transparent. it will amend the requirements for the buildings designated as contributary buildings on the level of the planning code of an inventory buildings eligible for tdr's, buildings where tdr's have been completed and where tdr's were completed within the year. this will allow sponsors eligible for tdr's as well as policy makers and preservationist who maintain the balance of the tdr's in the local area
and it recommends against supervisor kim's legislation. just a few points to make about it. supervisor kim's legislation will allow multiple sequa appeals to the board of supervisors on the same project even though through has been no meaningful change. and this will allow more appeals amid construction. in addition the legislation continues our current practice of allowing appeals to occur in the middle of a project. we say this in a appeal on supervisor campos appeal resulted. we saw recently that the delores park was appealed to the planning commission after the commission approves that project and someone wants to appeal it it can wait until plans are pulled and at which the construction will have to grind to a halt and it will cost additional money. i think this is not the right process that will continue under supervisor kim's legislation. it will eliminate over the counter permits by requiring that the planning department go there an analysis of smaller plans and when permits from what departments might be neat and then a compilation will be another delay. this aband
of questionable projects. i'm afraid that the new legislation will quietly start the [speaker not understood] environmental review appeals while also declaring exemption of one aspect of project from environmental review. so, these amendments are, therefore, in direct conflict with the spirit of ceqa and its interpretations by california courts. even if they are legal, the amendments will force community groups like golden gate audubon society to sue the city more because we are struggling to make our voice heard. so, we ask that the land use committee to delay the supervisor wiener's amendments and instead work closely with community members and give us serious consideration to supervisor kim's legislation which will be put forward in a few days. thank you. >> next speaker. >>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is hiroshi fakuda. i am somewhat disappointed with you, supervisor wiener. [speaker not understood]. i want to thank you for meeting with us on some occasions. however, this scheduling of this meeting is very unfortunate because we have [speaker not understood] legislation coming
specific regard the legislation we are addressing. the state law mandates cumulative impact that is all the events that are cumulatively being undertaken beyond the boundaries. [speaker not understood]. cumulative impact has to be measured by measurable criteria, testable criteria, and not by arbitrary limits in terms of area, size, or time limits for the renewal of permits. that's a violation of state law. further, as the supervisor indicated, truth is in the details. but also in the evaluation and the enforcement of law. in that respect, i want to call your attention, if you would, on the impact, egregious violation of state law [speaker not understood] ceqa regarding park merced and the cpmc where we have a pgd 30 inch gas pipeline of the possible volatility that destroyed [speaker not understood] in san bruno t. was acknowledged by staff and consultants of park merced that [inaudible]. with repeat problem with regard to pipeline. despite a quarter of a mile distance on the most volatile earthquake seismic center in the region and not addressed. the testimony and written
supervisor kim's legislation and do not vote on this today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >>> good afternoon. edward mottser, [speaker not understood]. we urge continuation of the vote on the wiener amendment here today. i would like focus my discussion specifically on 31.16, the automatic appeal and how this section introduces additional levels of confusion and uncertainty for the public and how it harm the environmental dialogue before the final project approval. so, the wiener amendment contemplates two pass for appeal. it [speaker not understood]. it is important because it requires a different action by the public depending on what -- whether the board of supervisors is the ceqa decision making body or not. the question is when would the board of supervisors become the ceqa decision making body. we argue it is uncertain ask confusing. for example, section 32.16 b2b says the board of supervisors is the decision making body if one or more proposed approval actions for the project is pending before the board of supervisors prior to the expiration of the administrative appeal peri
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 3,101 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)